Menu

Blue Pill Conditioning and Equalism

Rational reader Playdontpay had a very poignant comment in last week’s thread:

I’ll stick with the “boner test”. Women are only playthings anyway!
Do I enjoy fucking her? After sex is she good feminine company? This is all I need to know, if shit goes sideways I’ll just get another one.

She’s only going to lie and present a fictional version of herself based on what she thinks you’re looking for anyways. Women don’t do real self improvement they just convince themselves that they already are “better” because if she can’t convince herself it will be more difficult for her to sell it to you.

She will rewrite her sexual history and “because she’s a different person now”, well, that’s the way she has always been. Stop taking them so seriously, how are you going to vet a Machiavellian liar that’s been learning game from the age of 12?

His perspective on women is exactly why I tell men to avoid marriage altogether even though I’ve had a fantastic marriage myself for over 20 years. A lot of my haters, and more than a few supporters often get hung up on this.

Most of the criticism I get for writing what I do and still maintaining a good relationship with Mrs. T comes from men who cannot wrap their heads around the very simple, accepted truths described in this approach towards women. They think there must be something more to it. They think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are. So, naturally, the easy presumption is that any self respecting woman would never put up with a Red Pill man’s outlook and approach, because they believe the blank slate lie.

If an egalitarian ideal between men and women were tenable I’d completely agree, but it isn’t. So, in order to protect their ego investments, the rationale follows that any woman who falls for a Red Pill man must, by definition, be lacking in self esteem, self respect, low quality, etc. They believe that because anything else destroys their equalist fantasy world. This stems from a much deeper, root level, ego-investment in egalitarianism and I think this is a perspective a lot of Red Pill aware men have a tough time with to say nothing of men still plugged into the Blue Pill world view.

If you’ve read me for any length of time you’ll know I’m rarely prescriptive in my writing. I’ve always been of the belief that men need to find ways to utilize Red Pill awareness of intersexual dynamics for themselves on an individual basis. However, I will say that there are certain general aspects of that awareness and how to put it into something applicable in a man’s life that seem self-evident to me. First and foremost among these generalities is that in killing your inner Beta and disabusing oneself of his Blue Pill conditioning, a man needs to understand that the foundational belief that informed and defined his Blue Pill existence is equalism. The presumption that an idealized, blank-slate egalitarian state between the sexes is both possible and desirable informs all Blue Pill beliefs that follow it.

Transitioning this early equalist ideology to a sexual strategy is a simple, deductive process for men. Little boys are raised on feminine primacy memes and the narrative of Fempowerment, all the while being conditioned to believe that, beyond some insignificant biology, boys and girls are identical beings with the same potential and proficiencies. It’s gotten to the point where this process is normalized and pushed to the backgrounds of most people’s consciousness. We’ll raise boys in feminine-primary educational standards, we’ll teach them they’re the same as girls, but we’ll also teach them they’re defective for not aligning themselves with girls, for not getting in touch with their feminine sides.

I’m fleshing this process out a bit here because unlearning this equalist’s mental point of origin is a key transition in a man’s unplugging. Often the hardest part of killing the Beta and accepting Red Pill awareness is replacing equalism with oneself as a mental point of origin. This is a hard step for most guys because it requires he shift his opinion of himself and risk being called a selfish asshole. Remember, anything that would disagree with or challenge the idea of intersexual egalitarianism will always be equated with misogyny, intolerance, tyranny, etc. Questioning the validity of equalism (however it’s applied) will always be countered with a binary extreme.

This is exactly why Playdontpay’s comment appears so outrageous and self-indulgent to anyone not Red Pill aware. HIs pragmatism will be conflated with anger.

Interghangeability

Anonymous Reader posits:

Rollo…men who cannot wrap their heads around the very simple, accepted truths you describe about your approach towards women. They think there must be something more to it.

Often because they’ve been told since they were toddlers that there is “more to it”, also known as the Blue Pill.

They think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are.

Exactly so and very important. The feminist fallacy of “interchangeable” leads to this. The mental habit some men have of projecting themselves onto others, believing “Well, I’m like this, so everyone else must be also” leads to this. It is extremely frustrating to encounter female behavior that is so obviously stupid it is like catching someone peeing in the kitchen sink.

Many betaized men will put up with bad behavior for far too long, then have a major blowout of anger and expect behavioral change. That doesn’t work with toddlers or dogs or women. Constant, low key, correction does work. Neuroplasticity points to a “why”; daily reiteration of a desired habit works better than once per week, etc.

It’s important to recognize the difference between real introspection and brooding or ruminating, too. Some women will brood over wrongs done but not connect that up with their own behavior. That’s not introspection. That’s not “failure analysis”. That’s rewiring neural pathways to perpetual resentment.

It is extremely difficult for an equalist, betaized man to accept the fact that women want and need to be dominated, because they for sure would hate and resent that. It is even worse for the churchgoing men, because the equalist chant from the conservative feminists in churches is almost always slathered with a layer of “sisterly love”.

What Anon is driving at here is my second point in Blue Pill and Red Pill men understanding the depth of their conditioning. Equalism and feminism depend on interchangeability. In order for little girls to grow up to be anything they want to be there must be an agreed upon “level playing field” from a socio-sexual point of view. This means that if little girls want to grow up to become football players and little boys want to grow up to be prima ballerinas there (at least ostensibly) must be an agreed upon equalist environment in which this can happen.

The egalitarian ideal the Blue Pill conditions us to believe is possible presumes there is a mutually agreeable state of intersexual equality. In reality this state is entirely contradictory to our evolved sexual strategies and our biological realities, but in theory, an egalitarian ideal can only exist in an environment that is deemed equal by both men and women. If such a state were possible, if evolved influences of our biological realities for both sexes were non-factors, then this state would also presume a mutual interchangeability between the sexes.

The combination of our equalist conditioning and this interchangeability is the root of much of the dysfunction we see between men and women today. Because we are taught all-is-one, because we presume we’re all the same except for the plumbing, there is also a presumption of uniformity of purpose between the sexes. Equalism is really just the religion of the Feminine Imperative, but it hides behind this feminine-primary advertising that men and women are playing by a mutually agreed upon set of rules, striving for mutually agreed (Blue Pill) goals and all in spite of our natural predilection or any competitiveness. No other social condition in the history of mankind could place women in a more socially controlling position than Hypergamy excused by equalism.

In such a state women can mandate their unilateral control over Hypergamy, but there is one downside – men expect a mutual interchangeability. Blue Pill men actually expect women to play by that mutuality of purpose. That’s the interchange. Women will still ensure that optimizing Hypergamy is the prime directive, and they’ll hide behind equalism to keep men in check and absolve themselves of the worst of their predations in doing so, but men still expect women to feel as men do. Blue Pill men believe that women can and will love them in an idealized way that runs contrary to their Hypergamous opportunism. Why? Because they were conditioned to believe, from a very early age, that interchangeability exists between men and women.

The difference between men and women’s concepts of love is a prime example of this equalist interchangeability fallacy. Men’s concept of love is rooted in idealism; love for the sake of love. This is a result of men’s outward looking idealism and existential experience being male. Women’s concept of love is rooted in opportunism. This is a result of natural solipsism and the need to optimize Hypergamy. It is intrinsic and inward looking and based on security and ensuring survival. When we introduce a condition of egalitarian equalism to men and women only one of these concepts can be the mutually correct concept. Both can exist in a natural state of complementarity between the sexes, but if all-is-one, there can only be one concept of love that decides for both sexes.

The confusion Blue Pill men have is presuming that men’s idealistic concept is the mutually accepted one. This then wars with women’s natural opportunistic concept; and by extension her intrinsic need to optimize Hypergamy. Of course, I’m under no illusion that equalism is anything more than a social utility to ensure a feminine-primary social order, but this is one illustration of how deeply conditioned equalism is what a majority of men base their intersexual understandings on.

I see this conditioning persist even amongst men I would otherwise think had a firm grasp of Red Pill awareness. As I said, they think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are. They still want to hope in that Blue Pill goal of interchangeability. For all of the Red Pill and self awareness I could credit men of the MRM with, they still cling to this equalist mindset. This Blue Pill ideal of true equality between the sexes ultimately works against their best intentions since it is women who are more perfectly placed to take advantage of this ‘equality’. Once again, you will never achieve Blue Pill idealistic goals with Red Pill awareness. Most men are taught that those Blue Pill goals are worthwhile, but they are carrots proffered by the same builders of the cart who hope to get the mule to pull it.

I have read and heard the words of many otherwise brilliant, otherwise Red Pill aware men who simply cannot unlearn the falsehoods of egalitarian equalism. Nothing’s more frustrating to me than to hear a guy I have a deep respect for parrot back some meme or catchphrase of a feminine-operative social convention, or what he thinks is a funny, gender-deprecating quip that belies his ego-investment in the same equalism he just spent a book’s worth of research to debunk. I see brilliant men like Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Warren Farrell or Steven Pinker, who I would hold up as guys who have a lot figured out, still rattle off the same memes I would expect to see from equalists on Facebook. I find it the height of irony that the same men who would systematically destroy the idea of the blank slate still pander to the hopes and goals of the equalists who built those goals based on a blank slate ideology.

Understanding how your prison is constructed, how it works, who your jailers are, is not the same as understanding how to escape it. It’s interesting how refined our Red Pill Lenses can become yet we still never drill down to the root beliefs that still keep us ignorantly hopeful. It’s time we embrace an ideology of true complementarity between men and women. It’s time we accept that we are not equal and in some circumstances that puts men and women at respective advantages and disadvantages based on what any challenge poses to us. It’s time we threw away the Blue Pill goals that equalism has taught us are ‘correct’ and replace them with realistic ones founded on Red Pill awareness.

Post navigation

535 comments

Of course they are. Boy and girls are all human beings. Both sexes think and have feelings. Both have DNA. Both have hearts, lungs, and digestive systems that are virtually the same. They only differ in their reproductive organs.

Playing Devil’s Advocate here with a Blue Pill argument I’ve heard a few times.

As a boy, unaligned with the right sort of institute, I found obtaining a supply of dead cats to be somewhat, as the kids these days are wont to say, “problematic.”

Chickens on the other hand, could be obtained simply by buying them from a corner shop, so I did my basic anatomy practicum on chickens. Aside from a few elements of reproductive organs they look pretty much like people on the inside.

Women and their mangina orbiters want equality until they actually get it.

Tends to change that tune to “YOU SHOULDN’T HIT GIRLS EVEN IF THEY HIT YOU” even among the most ardent Strong Independent Women ™ real quick.

This is the reason I just don’t bother to give them equality to begin with. When they actually get it for better or for worse they’re unhappy. When they’re around a guy that doesn’t give it to them and instead keeps them in line, they’re quite happy in my experience. I’ve watched them go from being unhappy cast-iron ball breakers with a Blue Pill Beta to being bubbly, feminine, and happy just by talking with me. I don’t even consider myself as Alpha as I’d like be yet. They’re starving for guys who won’t tolerate their shit and make them feel like women instead of poor imitations of men.

The perspective you’re arguing for seems selfish and dickheaded… until you see women interacting with a guy that personifies it. Suddenly you can’t imagine why anyone would act any other way. If everybody’s genuinely happy one way and incredibly unhappy the other, why would anyone ever choose to behave in a way that makes everyone unhappy? It doesn’t even strike me as an ethical dilemma having seen the results for myself.

Wait, what? The desire for equalism from men will get you every time. Why is the Red Pill subreddit populated by butthurt guys who got blindsided by hypergamy? I believe that this desire for fairness is the hardest veil to remove not only because of cultural conditioning, but because of the abyss that it reveals. It’s the last crutch to throw away and often the most disabling. Unfortunately, when one gets to even considering this aspect, it is far too late to go back. Even if you wanted to.

So where does this radical equalism emanate from? If you listen to the alt right, whether Vox or Spencer, they will tell you that the rot in our society lies within classical liberalism and modernity itself. Both the racist right and the true left reject classical liberalism, lol.

Fyi, Rollo, it’s okay, you can start calling it “egalitarianism” now. Nobody will ever accuse you of doing politics…

For those playing alone at home, here’s a quick precis on how we got here. Since the Magna Carta, anglo saxons and other Europeans have been creating space for the individual in society, for a person to be their own “sovereign”. In other words, nobody is his lord or better. While there are laws in society, they apply to all people equally regardless of status. As well, people are completely free to leave that society and carry on life as they saw fit. This was not the lot of human beings for most of human history.

Late 18th century German and French intellectuals begin fucking about with radical equality and collectivism and democracy. It wasn’t good enough to be treated equally by the law. This in part was due to the aristocracies of Europe, the real royalty and establishment that was threatened by the new social order. Many Americans don’t realize that it was the real class structure of Europe that gave rise to Marxism and the left’s battle against the ‘ancien regime’.

But that didn’t exist in the U.S. in any meaningful way, which is why Marxism had no real traction here. The aristocracies of Europe weren’t really ended until the end of WWI, but this was after the radical menace of Marxism and it’s retarded little brother, Progressivism, were unleashed. You see, the academics didn’t have nearly as much to say about social order until the 19th century, but then there is an explosion of political philosophy and social sciences. The ideology of the left gave academics and other hacks a role to play, whereas before philosophy was considered an abstract idea. And then when we gave them a blank check in the form of student loans and grants by the trillions, well, that’s when the left went Full Retard in academia. Don’t blame them completely, the right utterly gave up the fight in all of our schools. And this is the engine that gives rise to today’s political activism. It’s the university that is the hub of all of it for the left. And they are swimming in tax payer money as they spit at the society that gave rise to their very existence. We are giving them the rope to hang us with, and so they have (and yes I’m paraphrasing a famous Marxist, let’s see how many of the supposedly smart men here know who it is).

The classical liberals didn’t help, saying things like “we are all created equal”. But then again, they had to come up with some way to justify individual sovereignty, so they decided that God gave every person inalienable rights, so called “Natural Rights”, observed in nature as immutable truisms no less, lol. It’s also true that in the latter half of the 20th century, the left stopped talking about liberty and freedom, and instead focused on equality and justice, however they define it. Christians made a hash of this by conflating liberty with their religion. “Liberation Theology” – Marxist to its core. And of course, Pope Francis is a raging communist/Marxist. But I’m crazy…

At the center of all of this is a Marxist idea. That of the centrality of the material, economic world to human affairs. Hence, the focus on outcomes and the need to use the state to force certain social outcomes, because at our base materialism is all there is. Right? So the state must change the material conditions of life in order to change society. One demands the other. Marx’s materialism was supposedly his power. Hegel’s dialectical wheel of history grinding away, always headed towards the proletariat rising up, it all was so “true” and still is to many.

This is why I focus on politics. The die was cast in our society to put us on this trajectory long ago. The consequences we feel today are in large part due to decisions made decades ago by radical leftists who pursued a century long campaign to destroy our institutions and society.

And for those who are going to dismiss me for focusing on Marxism, all I can say is that your ignorance is sad. My guess is the same people who dismiss me couldn’t even define Marxism and its awful intellectual children. Quick example for you. Critical theory is an overt Marxist lens of analysis and activism which has overtaken the humanities in academia. But they have been trying to overtake other fields. One Derek Bell was the promoter of an idea called “Critical Legal Theory”. Barack Obama led the student protests that forced his hire and the teaching of Critical Legal Theory at Harvard. He also insisted as a condition of his joining University of Chicago that he be able to teach Critical Legal Theory. Obama is a Marxist – no question, yet I’m sure there are sophists reading this who laugh at me saying this. As though it doesn’t matter or isn’t true, lol. This is how deep the rot goes, we aren’t even talking about what’s killing us. Marxism is widespread on today’s campuses. And it’s given rise to a radical, violent feminism that adopts the revolutionary approach of Marxists. Not the reverse. Radical feminism only can occur within the intellectual framework of Marxism. Wake the fuck up, Rollo.

If you don’t know Critical Theory is a Marxist construct, then you have no business dismissing me. In fact, if you don’t know what I’m talking about, consider that you may be a political imbecile.

The point? “Egalitarianism” is merely a useful tool for winning political battles, as Rollo points out how women use it. Women merely find it advantageous at times, not true. And of course, if we were only dealing with this with respect to the sexes then I’d agree that this arises independent of politics. But in fact, the radical equalism of which you speak emanates directly from our politics and is much broader than the sexes, as we all know.

And you won’t change a goddamned thing until you understand just how deep the rot is. Look at what’s happening to Trump and his agenda, lol. The entire political system is filled with collectivist, leftist, bureaucratic and progressive ideas and institutions. It’s already destroyed.

As is our society. What’s saddest is that at the ground, in the most basic ways, westerners and Americans know we are circling the bowl, that’s why we aren’t reproducing at replacement levels. We hate ourselves and don’t have even the basic sense to procreate enough to keep us around.

I agree with your criticism of western society. I didn’t have to know about Critical Legal Theory to know that I strongly disagreed with the way that the legal system was going. However, for tactical reasons, it’s better that Rollo himself not enter the political arena. Commenters such as yourself do a fine job without Rollo.

“As is our society. What’s saddest is that at the ground, in the most basic ways, westerners and Americans know we are circling the bowl, that’s why we aren’t reproducing at replacement levels. We hate ourselves and don’t have even the basic sense to procreate enough to keep us around.”

My understanding of populations of human’s are that we are at overpopulation. And that overpopulation is best explained (as what it is doing for society) is best described in the farcical movie Idiocracy.

I don’t think anyone red pill would not accept that Marxist political agenda’s are in parallel with the Feminine Imperative agendas. And I don’t think this indicates “you won’t change a thing” without changing with a top down approach to changing ideology in politics (turn the battleship around? Really?). Hence Rollo’s approach to getting individual men through triage in a bottoms up approach to their personal agency.

BTW, Lenin intimated covertly (if never said overtly) that capitalists (useful idiots of the West) would ” will sell us the rope with which to hang them”.

The ideology is already entrenched and doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon. What are we going to do about that? Actually change the ideology from the bottoms up? Actually change the political ideology from the top down.

I’d not have faith in large groups of individuals in a large society (nor a Globalist push). That only leads to in-group malice and out-group altruism. With social media and mainstream media in force, the only things we might have a chance to change is what we can reach out and touch in real life.

Hence my earlier comment. Who is the “we” in “change the ideology” Rollo mentions in the last paragraph?

“This is how deep the rot goes, we aren’t even talking about what’s killing us. Marxism is widespread on today’s campuses. And it’s given rise to a radical, violent feminism that adopts the revolutionary approach of Marxists. “

“hear a guy I have a deep respect for parrot back some meme or catchphrase of a feminine-operative social convention, or what he thinks is a funny, gender-deprecating quip that belies his ego-investment in the same equalism he just spent a book’s worth of research to debunk”

A list and exploration of meaning and consequences of many of these would be very valuable and instructive. My favorite, meaning most likely to make me nauseous (said by a man) or laugh hysterically (said by a woman) is “Happy wife, happy life.” Shoulder responsibility for her happiness, emotional and financial, and life will be great for you! Not only does this not work as advertised, but accepting responsibility for her happiness produces the exact OPPOSITE results, for BOTH the man and the woman.

“Aside from a few elements of reproductive organs they look pretty much like people on the inside.”

“Your knowledge of this is somehow troubling.”

Remember that time in 1985 I spent a year every other weekend as an autopsy assistant? That was troubling. Bad dreams and all, every other weekend. That shit will make you more Antifragile. But it was for a good cause. Twenty five years later I knew harvested deer would pretty much look the same on the inside during field dressing. (As they say in medical training: Learn one, do one, teach one.) I still get confused by which way to go when using a knife on the reproductive organs, though.

I like to keep a buddy handy on task to help me sort it out. I still remember harvesting three deer within a 20 minute window. One of them ran a distance into deep brush cover a moderately short distance. As we rounded them up later, I figured she, the biggest one, was going to be a heavy drag to the four wheeler cart. One of the guys stepped up and field dressed her with his folding case knife, making the load lighter. And then he washed his hands in the marsh water. No Big Deal. Hurdles are no higher than your mindset makes them.

Heard about that punch.(Didn’t look hard at all) He may not have even known it was a girl based on the clothes and her rebellious dreads.
Plenty of men don’t understand about running up to a mob like that or how to act so nobody thinks you’re joining in the fight. I know a girl like that doesn’t.

“I have read and heard the words of many otherwise brilliant, otherwise Red Pill aware men who simply cannot unlearn the falsehoods of egalitarian equalism. “

That’s because they don’t know where it comes from or how it got here.

The feminist doctrine of equalism actually goes all the way back to 450-600 AD, when the ancient church adopted the position that men and women are held to the same standard of sexual morality. They threw out what the Bible actually says (there’s a double standard) and replaced it with the pagan belief that men and women are equal in terms of sexual morality. Contrary to popular belief, feminism was founded by the church with it’s doctrine that men and women are held to the same moral standard.

Regardless of what anyone believes about religion, in our culture today the belief that men and women are held to the same standard of sexual morality is the moral foundation of feminism.

Contrary to what the churchians teach, the Bible says a husband only commits adultery if he has sex with another man’s wife, but a wife commits adultery if she has sex with any man other than her husband. A woman can only have one husband, a man can have more than one wife. If a man has sex with a man, that’s an abomination. If a woman gets sexual with another woman, big deal, nothing wrong with that. Christian men are forbidden to have sex with prostitutes, but there are no rules that forbid any woman from working as a prostitute, including Christian women.

That’s just an example of what the original books said, there’s more. What Rollo refers to the 1st set of books is actually the huge revision to what God said, the original books. The current set of books is the reaction to the revision.

The major outcome of adopting this moral foundation of equalism is socially imposed monogamy. Monogamy grants to women monopoly power within the relationship. Women were never meant to have any power over a man and it’s been that way from the beginning. You will never, ever hear this in a church, but it’s true:

Eve had ONE RULE to obey and she lived in paradise, a world without sin with no distractions. No work, no job, no children to chase, no TV, no cell phone, no social media, no pressure. Her own words confirm she knew the rule (she didn’t forget) and knew the consequences. Yet, under perfect conditions the most spectacular woman ever was not able to follow the one single rule that she was required to obey. Has any woman ever been born who is better than Eve? No. Eve was the greatest of all.

Eve was deceived and then she violated the command not to eat of the fruit. Following that she dropped the whole thing in her husband’s lap. Rather than doing his duty and take her in hand, Adam chose to abandon his duty and joined her in eating the fruit, knowing that he would die with her. Then, when God confronted him about it he tried to blame his wife for what he’d done.

Adam was a really nice guy who let his wife lead him and he followed her into sin and death. By definition, Adam was not fit to rule over his wife because as God said:

“you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;”

How do you deal with someone who, under ideal conditions, cannot follow even the simplest of rules? They are found to be (judged) incompetent and a guardian is appointed for them. Which is exactly what God did with Eve. However, God is just and God is wise. Adam was part of the problem because he was not fit to rule over his wife. Understand, although Eve was deceived and she transgressed, she did so on Adam’s watch under his authority. Man was appointed guardian over the woman, but Adam’s weakness was also part of the problem.

When everything was in the balance and the world needed an incredible asshole, Adam wasn’t up to the job. He was such a nice guy and so emotionally involved that he was not fit to rule over his wife. He had a choice between his mission (all of Creation) and his wife. When all of creation was on the line he abandoned his mission and surrendered. Because of a woman.

In light of that, God created hypergamy in women to help ensure they would get a man who was capable of ruling over them. That is what the “your desire shall be for your man (husband) and he shall rule over you” is all about. Contrary to common belief, it’s a feature- not a bug.

I’m in agreement with Rollo’s advice of not getting married. At least to the extent of not getting married according to the current definition of what marriage is. Spinning plates is fine if it’s done correctly, but that doesn’t mean what modern men think it means. There is no prohibition on “sex outside of marriage” in the Bible, but adultery is definitely an offense.

The biggest problem that modern relationships have is monogamy, which grants women monopoly power in the relationship. Once the woman has locked in the commitment, she no longer has any accountability and no motivation to do her job.

Does that mean all or even most men should have more than one wife? NO.

The truth is that in successful societies in which polygyny was accepted (China, Japan), the vast majority of men never had more than one wife. However, the mere threat of the husband being able to bring another wife into the marriage is enough to destroy the monopoly through the threat of competition.

Hypergamy works hand in hand with female competition to create attraction to a man that other women are attracted to. In an environment in which polygyny is acceptable, female competition still exists even within the marriage and thus hypergamy can strengthen the attraction to the husband because other women could legitimately be attracted to the husband and vice-versa. In an environment of socially imposed monogamy and its absence of female competition, the hypergamy works to decrease attraction to the husband.

At its core, Critical Theory can be used by anyone. Rollo is a supreme Critical Theorist. The idea of deconstructing texts and examining the viewpoint, biases, and motivations of authors is viewpoint-neutral.

Marx, Marcuse, and later Derrida, Habermas, and Foucault were men of their time and developed their ideas in a different world. That was the world of no rights for workers, limited popular education, Nazism, and outright racial discrimination and class exclusion. Their examination of law, economics and society was of its time. The world has changed. Some of what they wrote has expired. Their less-innovative disciples act like we’re still stuck in industrial serfdom and Jim Crow. But you can apply analyses derived from their work to anything.

As a lesbian feminist professor described Derrida’s work to me, “It’s like a toolbox, you can use it as you wish.” Hasn’t Rollo “deconstructed” so much in law and society? Marx was a good diagnostician in his examination of economic class interest, but a poor therapist and prescriber – his solutions sucked. My own quasi-Marxist idea about the Feminine Imperative: the Market was a prime enabler. Women buy a lot more shit, so economic growth can be fueled by giving women jobs, money, and autonomy, so economic interest in the form of human bots working for shareholder value led to radical restructuring of gender relations. No more limitations to the husband’s handout to buy a J.P. Penney dress a year. So liberating women to work is a prime policy of the OECD, World Bank, UN, US etc.

I recommend Foucault in particular. His writings on the “panopticon” of the prison expanded to the surveillance state, “the clinic” as metaphor for pathologizing dissident behavior can be applied to the current pathologizing of masculinity.

It’s not that Critical Theory is wrong, it’s that Critical Theory is proven by its own misuse as the world changes.

Complementarity works on a personal level. But on a societal level it not only threatens hypergamy, as Rollo describes, but it also suggests that male leadership is justified more generally as well. For both of these reasons, complementarity will be seen as the “path back to patriarchy.”

Red Pill really is a liberating message for men, because it is ultimately about being rewarded for being true to your masculine nature. But the sad reality is that marriage and fatherhood have been made to carry far more risk for men than they need to. A lot of that could be fixed without convincing anyone of RP ideas. Just based on an egalitarian standard, the potential legal consequences of being a man really are crazy. There are men paying child support for kids who are not theirs and guys in prison because their condom broke!

Another thing about the trope of equalism: It was largely foisted upon us by those who consider us anything but their equals. It’s yet another tool for mass control.

Also note the # of supposed equalist women who will accept financial assistance from men, pay your own damn bills. Actually nowadays it’s more like loafing around all day, posting pics and getting “tributes”.

Ok, the bottle looked a little off from where it would be held…she was off-balance…maybe she lost her grip on the bottle to try to catch herself. Definitely not the incident where she was punched in the forehead.

Bottle girl should actually have a desire to grow up and be successful. Will her song live on long after she does? She’s sure acting aimless toward that goal (of equalism and beyond).

I’m sure her boyfriend is whistling this tune:

Can I Graduate,
Can I look into the faces that I meet,
Can I get my punk-ass off the street,
I’ve been living on for so long,
Can I Graduate,
To the bastard talking down to me,
Your whipping boy calamity,
Cross your fingers, I’m going to knock it all down,
Can I Graduate,
Echo fading, We can’t let go,
She goes walking by in slow mo’,
Sell your Heart out for a buck,
Go on, Fade out, Before I get stuck.
Talking to somebody like you,
Do you live the days you go through,
Will this song live on long after we do,
Can I Graduate.
Can I look into the faces that I meet,
Can I get my punk-ass off the street.
Won’t die on the vine I want to knock it all down,
Can I Graduate,
Echo fading, Candle blow,
Did you flash out long ago,
Cross my fingers, I don’t know someone poked you down below.
Can I Graduate,
Can I get my punk-ass off the street,
Can I look into the faces that I meet,
I’m not waiting here for you to die,
Will this song live on long after we do. –Lyrics to Graduate, Third Eye Blind.

DeselbyMarx, Marcuse, and later Derrida, Habermas, and Foucault were men of their time and developed their ideas in a different world. That was the world of no rights for workers, limited popular education, Nazism, and outright racial discrimination and class exclusion.

Utter horse shit. You are so ignorant of history it is pathetic. Are you one of those who claims slavery in the US didn’t end until 1965, too?

Not sure what you’re getting at, Mr. Anonymous, I didn’t say the words you attribute to me. Slavery was legally abolished by the 13th Amendment in 1865. Various oppressive forms of sharecropping and employment persisted after that, but it wasn’t slavery.

Voting, housing, commercial and employment rights for black people in the USA were very curtailed until about 1965. I am old enough to remember 1965 and the Woolworth lunch counter sit-ins, Selma march for voting rights, etc. But that’s not the subject.

We were talking about Critical Theory: at its core, the examination of law, culture and institutions for operational biases and effects brought by the individuals and political groups which have the power to shape them. Which is what Rollo is doing, applying a form of Critical Theory. Have you read any of those authors? Do you have a specific point or disagreement to make?

This:Marx, Marcuse, and later Derrida, Habermas, and Foucault were men of their time and developed their ideas in a different world. That was the world of no rights for workers, limited popular education, Nazism, and outright racial discrimination and class exclusion.

It is horse shit. Nothing more.

One could expend many electrons demonstrating that, but it would divert other men away from the real topic – blue pill conditioning and the Female Imperative. No doubt you’d rather discuss ever more esoteric re-re-revisions of Marxism, perhaps to some new Year Zero, than deal with the Female Imperative that Rollo is writing about.

Men and women are not interchangeable, they are different. Rousseau’s blank slate was horse shit, and a lot of your precious Year Zero rests on the blank slate fallacy. Looks to me that you are just another conversation jammer.

“Happy wife, happy life” is common among politically and culturally conservative churchgoing men. They don’t like it when someone asks them why they are feminists, either.

“Happy life, happy wife” is closer to the “mission comes first” truth. This can be demonstrated. It’s been demonstrated time after time after time. It can be tested, making this statement more scientific in some sense than all the blather that counselors shovel out.

Just had a birthday 2 minutes ago. Was thinking about this story and how it relates to men in are culture from one versio of ourselfs into another.
THE MONKEY’S PAW

I.

Without, the night was cold and wet, but in the small parlour of Laburnam Villa the blinds were drawn and the fire burned brightly. Father and son were at chess, the former, who possessed ideas about the game involving radical changes, putting his king into such sharp and unnecessary perils that it even provoked comment from the white-haired old lady knitting placidly by the fire.

“Hark at the wind,” said Mr. White, who, having seen a fatal mistake after it was too late, was amiably desirous of preventing his son from seeing it.

“I’m listening,” said the latter, grimly surveying the board as he stretched out his hand. “Check.”

“I should hardly think that he’d come to-night,” said his father, with his hand poised over the board.

“Mate,” replied the son.

“That’s the worst of living so far out,” bawled Mr. White, with sudden and unlooked-for violence; “of all the beastly, slushy, out-of-the-way places to live in, this is the worst. Pathway’s a bog, and the road’s a torrent. I don’t know what people are thinking about. I suppose because only two houses in the road are let, they think it doesn’t matter.”

“Never mind, dear,” said his wife, soothingly; “perhaps you’ll win the next one.”

Mr. White looked up sharply, just in time to intercept a knowing glance between mother and son. The words died away on his lips, and he hid a guilty grin in his thin grey beard.

“There he is,” said Herbert White, as the gate banged to loudly and heavy footsteps came toward the door.

The old man rose with hospitable haste, and opening the door, was heard condoling with the new arrival. The new arrival also condoled with himself, so that Mrs. White said, “Tut, tut!” and coughed gently as her husband entered the room, followed by a tall, burly man, beady of eye and rubicund of visage.

“Sergeant-Major Morris,” he said, introducing him.

The sergeant-major shook hands, and taking the proffered seat by the fire, watched contentedly while his host got out whiskey and tumblers and stood a small copper kettle on the fire.

At the third glass his eyes got brighter, and he began to talk, the little family circle regarding with eager interest this visitor from distant parts, as he squared his broad shoulders in the chair and spoke of wild scenes and doughty deeds; of wars and plagues and strange peoples.

“Twenty-one years of it,” said Mr. White, nodding at his wife and son. “When he went away he was a slip of a youth in the warehouse. Now look at him.”

“He don’t look to have taken much harm,” said Mrs. White, politely.

“I’d like to go to India myself,” said the old man, “just to look round a bit, you know.”

“Better where you are,” said the sergeant-major, shaking his head. He put down the empty glass, and sighing softly, shook it again.

“I should like to see those old temples and fakirs and jugglers,” said the old man. “What was that you started telling me the other day about a monkey’s paw or something, Morris?”

“Well, it’s just a bit of what you might call magic, perhaps,” said the sergeant-major, offhandedly.

His three listeners leaned forward eagerly. The visitor absent-mindedly put his empty glass to his lips and then set it down again. His host filled it for him.

“To look at,” said the sergeant-major, fumbling in his pocket, “it’s just an ordinary little paw, dried to a mummy.”

He took something out of his pocket and proffered it. Mrs. White drew back with a grimace, but her son, taking it, examined it curiously.

“And what is there special about it?” inquired Mr. White as he took it from his son, and having examined it, placed it upon the table.

“It had a spell put on it by an old fakir,” said the sergeant-major, “a very holy man. He wanted to show that fate ruled people’s lives, and that those who interfered with it did so to their sorrow. He put a spell on it so that three separate men could each have three wishes from it.”

His manner was so impressive that his hearers were conscious that their light laughter jarred somewhat.

“Well, why don’t you have three, sir?” said Herbert White, cleverly.

The soldier regarded him in the way that middle age is wont to regard presumptuous youth. “I have,” he said, quietly, and his blotchy face whitened.

“And did you really have the three wishes granted?” asked Mrs. White.

“I did,” said the sergeant-major, and his glass tapped against his strong teeth.

“And has anybody else wished?” persisted the old lady.

“The first man had his three wishes. Yes,” was the reply; “I don’t know what the first two were, but the third was for death. That’s how I got the paw.”

His tones were so grave that a hush fell upon the group.

“If you’ve had your three wishes, it’s no good to you now, then, Morris,” said the old man at last. “What do you keep it for?”

The soldier shook his head. “Fancy, I suppose,” he said, slowly. “I did have some idea of selling it, but I don’t think I will. It has caused enough mischief already. Besides, people won’t buy. They think it’s a fairy tale; some of them, and those who do think anything of it want to try it first and pay me afterward.”

“If you could have another three wishes,” said the old man, eyeing him keenly, “would you have them?”

“I don’t know,” said the other. “I don’t know.”

He took the paw, and dangling it between his forefinger and thumb, suddenly threw it upon the fire. White, with a slight cry, stooped down and snatched it off.

“Better let it burn,” said the soldier, solemnly.

“If you don’t want it, Morris,” said the other, “give it to me.”

“I won’t,” said his friend, doggedly. “I threw it on the fire. If you keep it, don’t blame me for what happens. Pitch it on the fire again like a sensible man.”

The other shook his head and examined his new possession closely. “How do you do it?” he inquired.

“Hold it up in your right hand and wish aloud,” said the sergeant-major, “but I warn you of the consequences.”

“Sounds like the Arabian Nights,” said Mrs. White, as she rose and began to set the supper. “Don’t you think you might wish for four pairs of hands for me?”

Her husband drew the talisman from pocket, and then all three burst into laughter as the sergeant-major, with a look of alarm on his face, caught him by the arm.

“If you must wish,” he said, gruffly, “wish for something sensible.”

Mr. White dropped it back in his pocket, and placing chairs, motioned his friend to the table. In the business of supper the talisman was partly forgotten, and afterward the three sat listening in an enthralled fashion to a second instalment of the soldier’s adventures in India.

“If the tale about the monkey’s paw is not more truthful than those he has been telling us,” said Herbert, as the door closed behind their guest, just in time for him to catch the last train, “we sha’nt make much out of it.”

“A trifle,” said he, colouring slightly. “He didn’t want it, but I made him take it. And he pressed me again to throw it away.”

“Likely,” said Herbert, with pretended horror. “Why, we’re going to be rich, and famous and happy. Wish to be an emperor, father, to begin with; then you can’t be henpecked.”

He darted round the table, pursued by the maligned Mrs. White armed with an antimacassar.

Mr. White took the paw from his pocket and eyed it dubiously. “I don’t know what to wish for, and that’s a fact,” he said, slowly. “It seems to me I’ve got all I want.”

“If you only cleared the house, you’d be quite happy, wouldn’t you?” said Herbert, with his hand on his shoulder. “Well, wish for two hundred pounds, then; that ‘ll just do it.”

His father, smiling shamefacedly at his own credulity, held up the talisman, as his son, with a solemn face, somewhat marred by a wink at his mother, sat down at the piano and struck a few impressive chords.

“I wish for two hundred pounds,” said the old man distinctly.

A fine crash from the piano greeted the words, interrupted by a shuddering cry from the old man. His wife and son ran toward him.

“It moved,” he cried, with a glance of disgust at the object as it lay on the floor.

“As I wished, it twisted in my hand like a snake.”

“Well, I don’t see the money,” said his son as he picked it up and placed it on the table, “and I bet I never shall.”

“It must have been your fancy, father,” said his wife, regarding him anxiously.

He shook his head. “Never mind, though; there’s no harm done, but it gave me a shock all the same.”

They sat down by the fire again while the two men finished their pipes. Outside, the wind was higher than ever, and the old man started nervously at the sound of a door banging upstairs. A silence unusual and depressing settled upon all three, which lasted until the old couple rose to retire for the night.

“I expect you’ll find the cash tied up in a big bag in the middle of your bed,” said Herbert, as he bade them good-night, “and something horrible squatting up on top of the wardrobe watching you as you pocket your ill-gotten gains.”

He sat alone in the darkness, gazing at the dying fire, and seeing faces in it. The last face was so horrible and so simian that he gazed at it in amazement. It got so vivid that, with a little uneasy laugh, he felt on the table for a glass containing a little water to throw over it. His hand grasped the monkey’s paw, and with a little shiver he wiped his hand on his coat and went up to bed.

II.

In the brightness of the wintry sun next morning as it streamed over the breakfast table he laughed at his fears. There was an air of prosaic wholesomeness about the room which it had lacked on the previous night, and the dirty, shrivelled little paw was pitched on the sideboard with a carelessness which betokened no great belief in its virtues.

“I suppose all old soldiers are the same,” said Mrs. White. “The idea of our listening to such nonsense! How could wishes be granted in these days? And if they could, how could two hundred pounds hurt you, father?”

“Might drop on his head from the sky,” said the frivolous Herbert.

“Morris said the things happened so naturally,” said his father, “that you might if you so wished attribute it to coincidence.”

“Well, don’t break into the money before I come back,” said Herbert as he rose from the table. “I’m afraid it’ll turn you into a mean, avaricious man, and we shall have to disown you.”

His mother laughed, and following him to the door, watched him down the road; and returning to the breakfast table, was very happy at the expense of her husband’s credulity. All of which did not prevent her from scurrying to the door at the postman’s knock, nor prevent her from referring somewhat shortly to retired sergeant-majors of bibulous habits when she found that the post brought a tailor’s bill.

“Herbert will have some more of his funny remarks, I expect, when he comes home,” she said, as they sat at dinner.

“I dare say,” said Mr. White, pouring himself out some beer; “but for all that, the thing moved in my hand; that I’ll swear to.”

“You thought it did,” said the old lady soothingly.

“I say it did,” replied the other. “There was no thought about it; I had just—- What’s the matter?”

His wife made no reply. She was watching the mysterious movements of a man outside, who, peering in an undecided fashion at the house, appeared to be trying to make up his mind to enter. In mental connection with the two hundred pounds, she noticed that the stranger was well dressed, and wore a silk hat of glossy newness. Three times he paused at the gate, and then walked on again. The fourth time he stood with his hand upon it, and then with sudden resolution flung it open and walked up the path. Mrs. White at the same moment placed her hands behind her, and hurriedly unfastening the strings of her apron, put that useful article of apparel beneath the cushion of her chair.

She brought the stranger, who seemed ill at ease, into the room. He gazed at her furtively, and listened in a preoccupied fashion as the old lady apologized for the appearance of the room, and her husband’s coat, a garment which he usually reserved for the garden. She then waited as patiently as her sex would permit, for him to broach his business, but he was at first strangely silent.

“I—was asked to call,” he said at last, and stooped and picked a piece of cotton from his trousers. “I come from ‘Maw and Meggins.'”

The old lady started. “Is anything the matter?” she asked, breathlessly. “Has anything happened to Herbert? What is it? What is it?”

Her husband interposed. “There, there, mother,” he said, hastily. “Sit down, and don’t jump to conclusions. You’ve not brought bad news, I’m sure, sir;” and he eyed the other wistfully.

“I’m sorry—” began the visitor.

“Is he hurt?” demanded the mother, wildly.

The visitor bowed in assent. “Badly hurt,” he said, quietly, “but he is not in any pain.”

“Oh, thank God!” said the old woman, clasping her hands. “Thank God for that! Thank—”

She broke off suddenly as the sinister meaning of the assurance dawned upon her and she saw the awful confirmation of her fears in the other’s averted face. She caught her breath, and turning to her slower-witted husband, laid her trembling old hand upon his. There was a long silence.

“He was caught in the machinery,” said the visitor at length in a low voice.

“Caught in the machinery,” repeated Mr. White, in a dazed fashion, “yes.”

He sat staring blankly out at the window, and taking his wife’s hand between his own, pressed it as he had been wont to do in their old courting-days nearly forty years before.

“He was the only one left to us,” he said, turning gently to the visitor. “It is hard.”

The other coughed, and rising, walked slowly to the window. “The firm wished me to convey their sincere sympathy with you in your great loss,” he said, without looking round. “I beg that you will understand I am only their servant and merely obeying orders.”

There was no reply; the old woman’s face was white, her eyes staring, and her breath inaudible; on the husband’s face was a look such as his friend the sergeant might have carried into his first action.

“I was to say that ‘Maw and Meggins’ disclaim all responsibility,” continued the other. “They admit no liability at all, but in consideration of your son’s services, they wish to present you with a certain sum as compensation.”

Mr. White dropped his wife’s hand, and rising to his feet, gazed with a look of horror at his visitor. His dry lips shaped the words, “How much?”

“Two hundred pounds,” was the answer.

Unconscious of his wife’s shriek, the old man smiled faintly, put out his hands like a sightless man, and dropped, a senseless heap, to the floor.

III.

In the huge new cemetery, some two miles distant, the old people buried their dead, and came back to a house steeped in shadow and silence. It was all over so quickly that at first they could hardly realize it, and remained in a state of expectation as though of something else to happen —something else which was to lighten this load, too heavy for old hearts to bear.

But the days passed, and expectation gave place to resignation—the hopeless resignation of the old, sometimes miscalled, apathy. Sometimes they hardly exchanged a word, for now they had nothing to talk about, and their days were long to weariness.

It was about a week after that the old man, waking suddenly in the night, stretched out his hand and found himself alone. The room was in darkness, and the sound of subdued weeping came from the window. He raised himself in bed and listened.

“Come back,” he said, tenderly. “You will be cold.”

“It is colder for my son,” said the old woman, and wept afresh.

The sound of her sobs died away on his ears. The bed was warm, and his eyes heavy with sleep. He dozed fitfully, and then slept until a sudden wild cry from his wife awoke him with a start.

“The paw!” she cried wildly. “The monkey’s paw!”

He started up in alarm. “Where? Where is it? What’s the matter?”

She came stumbling across the room toward him. “I want it,” she said, quietly. “You’ve not destroyed it?”

“It’s in the parlour, on the bracket,” he replied, marvelling. “Why?”

She cried and laughed together, and bending over, kissed his cheek.

“I only just thought of it,” she said, hysterically. “Why didn’t I think of it before? Why didn’t you think of it?”

“Think of what?” he questioned.

“The other two wishes,” she replied, rapidly. “We’ve only had one.”

“Was not that enough?” he demanded, fiercely.

“No,” she cried, triumphantly; “we’ll have one more. Go down and get it quickly, and wish our boy alive again.”

The man sat up in bed and flung the bedclothes from his quaking limbs. “Good God, you are mad!” he cried, aghast.

“Get it,” she panted; “get it quickly, and wish—Oh, my boy, my boy!”

Her husband struck a match and lit the candle. “Get back to bed,” he said, unsteadily. “You don’t know what you are saying.”

“We had the first wish granted,” said the old woman, feverishly; “why not the second?”

“A coincidence,” stammered the old man.

“Go and get it and wish,” cried his wife, quivering with excitement.

The old man turned and regarded her, and his voice shook. “He has been dead ten days, and besides he—I would not tell you else, but—I could only recognize him by his clothing. If he was too terrible for you to see then, how now?”

“Bring him back,” cried the old woman, and dragged him toward the door. “Do you think I fear the child I have nursed?”

He went down in the darkness, and felt his way to the parlour, and then to the mantelpiece. The talisman was in its place, and a horrible fear that the unspoken wish might bring his mutilated son before him ere he could escape from the room seized upon him, and he caught his breath as he found that he had lost the direction of the door. His brow cold with sweat, he felt his way round the table, and groped along the wall until he found himself in the small passage with the unwholesome thing in his hand.

Even his wife’s face seemed changed as he entered the room. It was white and expectant, and to his fears seemed to have an unnatural look upon it. He was afraid of her.

“Wish!” she cried, in a strong voice.

“It is foolish and wicked,” he faltered.

“Wish!” repeated his wife.

He raised his hand. “I wish my son alive again.”

The talisman fell to the floor, and he regarded it fearfully. Then he sank trembling into a chair as the old woman, with burning eyes, walked to the window and raised the blind.

He sat until he was chilled with the cold, glancing occasionally at the figure of the old woman peering through the window. The candle-end, which had burned below the rim of the china candlestick, was throwing pulsating shadows on the ceiling and walls, until, with a flicker larger than the rest, it expired. The old man, with an unspeakable sense of relief at the failure of the talisman, crept back to his bed, and a minute or two afterward the old woman came silently and apathetically beside him.

Neither spoke, but lay silently listening to the ticking of the clock. A stair creaked, and a squeaky mouse scurried noisily through the wall. The darkness was oppressive, and after lying for some time screwing up his courage, he took the box of matches, and striking one, went downstairs for a candle.

At the foot of the stairs the match went out, and he paused to strike another; and at the same moment a knock, so quiet and stealthy as to be scarcely audible, sounded on the front door.

The matches fell from his hand and spilled in the passage. He stood motionless, his breath suspended until the knock was repeated. Then he turned and fled swiftly back to his room, and closed the door behind him. A third knock sounded through the house.

“What’s that?” cried the old woman, starting up.

“A rat,” said the old man in shaking tones—”a rat. It passed me on the stairs.”

His wife sat up in bed listening. A loud knock resounded through the house.

“It’s Herbert!” she screamed. “It’s Herbert!”

She ran to the door, but her husband was before her, and catching her by the arm, held her tightly.

“What are you going to do?” he whispered hoarsely.

“It’s my boy; it’s Herbert!” she cried, struggling mechanically. “I forgot it was two miles away. What are you holding me for? Let go. I must open the door.”

There was another knock, and another. The old woman with a sudden wrench broke free and ran from the room. Her husband followed to the landing, and called after her appealingly as she hurried downstairs. He heard the chain rattle back and the bottom bolt drawn slowly and stiffly from the socket. Then the old woman’s voice, strained and panting.

“The bolt,” she cried, loudly. “Come down. I can’t reach it.”

But her husband was on his hands and knees groping wildly on the floor in search of the paw. If he could only find it before the thing outside got in. A perfect fusillade of knocks reverberated through the house, and he heard the scraping of a chair as his wife put it down in the passage against the door. He heard the creaking of the bolt as it came slowly back, and at the same moment he found the monkey’s paw, and frantically breathed his third and last wish.

The knocking ceased suddenly, although the echoes of it were still in the house. He heard the chair drawn back, and the door opened. A cold wind rushed up the staircase, and a long loud wail of disappointment and misery from his wife gave him courage to run down to her side, and then to the gate beyond. The street lamp flickering opposite shone on a quiet and deserted road.

BoxcarComplementarity works on a personal level. But on a societal level it not only threatens hypergamy, as Rollo describes, but it also suggests that male leadership is justified more generally as well. For both of these reasons, complementarity will be seen as the “path back to patriarchy.”

It is the path back to patriarchy. In the churchgoing circles even the egalitarian-lite that gets labeled “complementarianism” (really 1980’s 2nd wave feminism) gets tarred as teh patriarchy! (clutch pearls, fan self, breath heavily) by the conservative feminists. Because sexual dimorphism means women can’t actually be infantry, no matter how rigged the standards. Sexual dimorphism is amply demonstrated in the pix / vid / gif right above from Berkeley. All the YouGoGurrl in the world won’t make up for the reality of what years of testosterone does to a man’s bones, muscle, brains and reflexes.

Sexual dimorphism means women should never be Scout leaders for boys. It means women can’t really be cops or Border patrol officers or firemen or a lot of other things that rely on upper body strength to get the job done. That’s not FAY-er and in fact leads back to patriarchy in some form or another.

Biology is sexist. Attempts to legally abolish the reality of biology are extensive, but so far have not succeeded.

Jordan Peterson is the real disappointment as he has the platform, following, intellect and respect to make an impact but is an avowed White night.

Even though his Jungian grounding is replete with ‘shadow’ archetypes, I’ve yet to see him use it in the context of normal women, he only applies it to a specific category of woman and even then in very abstract round about way.

I guess as a Jungian therapist it doesn’t pay to bite the hand that feeds you, can’t upset the clientele.

Sexual Dimorphism
Anyone who denies the possibility of biological explanations for differences in behavior between the sexes is someone who deserves to be written-off completely. When I started injecting testosterone, I instantly became less anxious and neurotic. I had more obvious leadership abilities – public speaking became like second nature, rather than a scary thing to stumble through. It would be wrong to project the experiences of a man with low T onto women, but a lot of women’s weak points happen to coincide.

Reading the essay again, I am struck by how men prioritize honest and objective descriptions of their sexual strategy, rather than the moralistic propaganda we tend to hear from women. Women will make exceptions for some close friends (almost always other women) who they will be more direct with. And their right to be totally judgement-free in their girl-talk space is pretty much a given. (Can you imagine if there were Access Hollywood tapes of some female politician? They may get leaked, but there is no way they would get the same front page coverage.)

True story here…I know a thoroughly blue pill guy who was in a crappy marriage to a lazy wife who wouldn’t fuck him. When he told a female co-worker about his marital woes, she gave him the crap “happy wife happy life” advice. So, even though his wife’s ‘gina was still clamped shut, he takes this advice and proceeds to have a brand new house built. He and the lazy wife got divorced anyway. Shocking. But surprisingly, he got to keep the new house (must’ve had one hell of a lawyer).

Anyway, take a wild-assed guess as to who he married before the ink dried on the divorce decree? Yep…he married the chick who gave him the “happy life happy wife” advice. She’s about 12-14 years older than him. So damned blue pill that he wanted a mommy and a wife all rolled into one.

“They think there must be something more to it. They think in their preconditioned equalist mindset that women are wired for the same introspection and development that men are.”

If you had to boil this post down to 2 sentences, that’s it. Women didn’t evolve to be wired for introspection and development because *these skills have never been required for their survival*. There simply is no accountability or repercussions for bad female behavior, no Darwinian feedback mechanism, no disincentive. There will always be someone there to enable and support them no matter what – there’s no “high price of failure”.

Men, on the other hand, have *absolutely* had to develop the skills of introspection and development. Because failure to learn from their mistakes means reduced odds of survival.

Men have unfortunately let these skills of introspection and development backfire on them, and be misused. In our efforts to “survive” we’ve overcomplicated things to the point of lunacy, when if we focused on the simpler truths we could thrive.

Stop taking them so seriously, how are you going to vet a Machiavellian liar that’s been learning game from the age of 12?

Sentient posts video of nazi scalp girl @April 17, 2017 at 8:12 pm. It’s all there if you can bear to listen to much of it.

The Female Interviewer (initials F.I.) provides sympathetic leading questions. Nazi scalp girl explains how she was looking around near the crowd, sucker punched, then punched by two more people, then grabbed around the neck by a guy who “kneed my forehead a bunch of times”, as others attempted to throw her down onto the rocks in the planter. She was just trying to “not get my skull cracked open” as people “kept throwing me down”. “They were trying to hurt me as much as they could”.

There is not a mark on her. This can be no more than a day or two later. It’s beyond Machiavellian on her part because she’s not really working some diabolical angle. Reality has been changed by the workings of her mind. She believes her version of events unreservedly. If I’m not mistaken this is exactly how the matrix works. This is the hamster. They can all do this. It will never change.

It’s interesting how refined our Red Pill Lenses can become yet we still never drill down to the root beliefs that still keep us ignorantly hopeful.

Women didn’t evolve to be wired for introspection and development because *these skills have never been required for their survival*. There simply is no accountability or repercussions for bad female behavior, no Darwinian feedback mechanism, no disincentive.

Yeah, because there’s no Patriarchalism today, Patriarchalism must never have existed. Today’s world is all there ever was. Base your evolutionary ideas on today’s world and ignore history–makes perfect sense.

Women are capable of introspection and growth they just don’t have any reason to do it… Especially when they are young. The pendulum is just too far favoring them right now for there to be a huge motivation for it. There’s a built-in societal scapegoat for anything that could go wrong in a woman’s life and it’s just easier to be a victim than to actually take responsibility for what your life has become. They’ve gotten their equal rights but they fight equal responsibility.

On the “love” front I’ve come to realize that we’re more alike than not. Our (men’s) idealistic love is actually rationalized scarcity. Fear of loss, fear of pain, fear of reality… Same as women’s opportunistic love… just rationalized scarcity. I’ve been able to experience true unconditional love a few times recently and it’s nothing like society’s definition of love. There’s no possessiveness or attachment involved. There’s no “I love this person more than that person” value attributions. It feels like a high actually. Like a constant non-fluctuating love/compassion. Hard to explain. Either way, unconditional love is really rare.

It doesn’t really matter how we got here. Dwelling on that is just victim-hood. The only thing we can do is accept life as it is, grow as much as we possibly can and be happy. That’s the only reason we’re here anyway.

Reality has been changed by the workings of her mind. She believes her version of events unreservedly.

Lost Patrol – and so on the Plains of Ur, had Fashy Haircut carried her off to his tent at the end of the battle, this mechanism you describe would begin to serve her well… and his and her’s kids 9 months later…

” I’ve been able to experience true unconditional love a few times recently and it’s nothing like society’s definition of love. There’s no possessiveness or attachment involved. There’s no “I love this person more than that person” value attributions. It feels like a high actually. Like a constant non-fluctuating love/compassion.

One of the reasons I don’t give 1 single shit about scribs Marxist diatribes and his professions of some kind of intellectual superiority of a kind, is precisely because I have a different view of history, particularly American history.

The threat of Marxism or any other random assed ideology to my mind, is mostly theoretical exercise.

I’ve traced my family history in America back to the 1750’s, and so my perspective based on a history that evades consumers of ” written theory and ideology “.

Marxist didn’t enslave my great-great grandparents, nor did they relocate my native american ancestors and march a bunch of them out west.

I was born in the Jim Crow south. Technically speaking, I was born without full citizen’s rights. That had to be fought for. The bulk of the people doing the fighting and heavy lifting were labelled Marxist and communist, most notably by J. Edgar Hoover. Threats to national security. This is a part of American history. It’s not hidden or top secret, but most people just brush past it.

So a hair on fire declaration of the dangerous Marxist destroying America rings a little hollow to me. My experience and perspective is different. It doesn’t automatically mean I’m an uninformed moron.

American men have been sold out by other American men at the end of the day.

Protests and women at Berkeley getting face punched or whatever, that shit is a side show distraction. It’s the FI circus. In pua lingo, the powers that be are spiking your emotions. Keeping everyone on an emotional rollercoaster. Division and strife are wonderful tools that achieve objectives.

Earlier a commenter said that things are different today. I concur. What hasn’t changed is biology and innate human nature. We ping off of our environment. Intelligence recognises this without looking back in time to find an ideological reason that may or may not apply. Intelligence finds solutions to active problems on the ground in real time. If I run into network issues at work, I never refer back to the earliest known computer manuals and theory to formulate a solution.

There’s a vast repository of information being compiled over the last 6 decades that extrapolates that men are the problem. Just because someone wrote it does not make it automatically infallible truth.

Marxist didn’t enslave my great-great grandparents, nor did they relocate my native american ancestors and march a bunch of them out west.

Just to throw a little soap in your eyes, some of your native American ancestors who were marched out west likely bought some other of your black ancestors as slaves. And white Americans didn’t enslave blacks in Africa…that was done by other African blacks and by the Portuguese…who typically carry the sickle cell gene. And some of your black ancestors may have helped massacre some of your native American ancestors. Ain’t history a bitch?!

One of my ancestors enslaved himself in England in order to come to America as an indentured servant.

And ancient peoples enslaved other ancient peoples after conquering cities. We are all descended from slaves.

BoxcarIt would be wrong to project the experiences of a man with low T onto women, but a lot of women’s weak points happen to coincide.

Well, yes and no. If you pick any of the usual checklists for “men with low T”, a lot the behaviors listed fit fertile women at some point in their cycle. Moodiness, anxiety, and so forth. Elevating T, either via exogeneous means or exercise, tends to reduce or even eliminate those mental health issues. Unfortunately the official range of T is pretty wide, so a lot of men with T levels that are not good for them won’t get any decent advice from the average doctor.

A lot of people are on anxiety / depression meds in the US now. It would be interesting to survey men in different age groups with the a low T questionnaire, a simple lifestyle survey, and a few questions on SSRI & other mood altering drugs.

You’re reading information that’s slanted/justifying. Lots of that around. I’ve read lots of it too, but the vast historical record tells a different tale. But hey, it’s not as interesting a read as prog Marxist.

“Women can be trained to be introspective and to seek personal growth. Training can be done by father, mother, or male LTR partner.”

Lets be honest. Most men don’t seek personal growth and introspection either. Easier just to blame a woman/women in general/capitalism/marxism/society/whatever and be a victim. Or you can just rationalize that you’ll be happy in heaven for being a “good” person. Or you can pretend that your codependent marriage is “happiness”. More men make a sincere effort than women do I would say right now… I’m just guessing with that though, those Oprah/Eckhart Tolle/Tony Robbins/LOA things have tons of women followers.

I was born in the Jim Crow south. Technically speaking, I was born without full citizen’s rights. That had to be fought for. The bulk of the people doing the fighting and heavy lifting were labelled Marxist and communist, most notably by J. Edgar Hoover. Threats to national security. This is a part of American history.

Racial discrimination was certainly part of American history. I get it that it formed part of your history. It’s just not that relevant to whites. For whites, Marxists are currently destroying our culture, killing our jobs, settling terrorists in our communities, and denying betas sex by pushing the FI. (Of course, blacks are harmed first by these Marxist policies.) Pardon us whites if we don’t give a shit about past racial discrimination.

Daymn, that’s a lot of qualifiers to fit the precise definition to fit your argument there, Blax.
Even down to “transatlantic”…so Barbary pirates don’t count!
Now that is some industrial strength cognitive dissonance.

I already know you don’t give a shit. You’re happy in ignorance and misinformation on the subject. But you older than me so it’s par for a lot of your generation. No hate. Go read a few more volumes on prog Marxist. And keep reading the same shit forever.

Oh, no doubt that the demand for slaves helped encourage the enslavement of blacks. Entire black tribes earned their living by enslaving other blacks and selling them to the Portuguese.

Did J. Edgar fight against civil rights workers? Surely. Were many of those civil rights workers Marxists? Surely. Did some of those Marxists spy for the Soviet Union? Surely. Were many of the news media Marxists? Surely. Here is your takeaway: “If you are attacking Marxism, you are attacking civil rights.”

Everyone’s hands are dirty.

Oh, yeah, when I was young I was against racial discrimination and for civil rights…I was liberal. I’m still for civil rights and against racial discrimination enforced by law…which legal discrimination includes affirmative action.

Is a cube equal to a pyramid?
Both serves a purpose defined by their own intrinsic shapes. Both are complementary and adds to another.
That being established, you wouldn’t put the pyramid under a cube would you?
Unless you want something non-functional that would require a lot of external forces to achieve this goal.

The sphere is rife with apologist for racism and the historical record. Nothing can be done about that, so zfg. But it’s funny that men can get the idea of the FI, yet not grasp that those same mechanisms exist in other aspects of life. That’s why I always say that there is more that One red pill.

But at least I won’t get banned or have my comments censored here at TRM like I’ve experienced at Roosh and CH, while only the single, angry bullshit was allowed to be put forth unchallenged.

” Asad-ed-Din, the Lion of the Faith, Basha of Algiers, walked in the evening cool in the orchard of the Kasbah upon the heights above the city, and at his side, stepping daintily, came Fenzileh, his wife, the first lady of his hareem, whom eighteen years ago he had carried off in his mighty arms from that little whitewashed village above the Straits of Messina which his followers had raided.

She had been a lissom maid of sixteen in those far-off days, the child of humble peasant-folk, and she had gone uncomplaining to the arms of her swarthy ravisher.”

If you’re looking for a time when a person is going to be most forthcoming about “mistakes”, the job interview probably isn’t the best example. This should be patently obvious. Sorry if I’ve stepped on your toes. Anyone who is prepared for an interview will know they are likely to be asked about mistakes, and they should have a prepared response. It’s not necessarily and honest response. And if they don’t, that’s not a symptom of having no self awareness (irrespective of whether they do or not) that’s just a symptom of being unprepared.